Kempel v. Alexander
| Decision Date | 22 April 1994 |
| Docket Number | 1994,No. 32,32 |
| Citation | 647 A.2d 381 |
| Parties | Matthew J. KEMPEL, and Alexander & King Masonry, Defendants Below, Appellants, v. Rebecca ALEXANDER, and Joseph Alexander, Plaintiffs Below, Appellees. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Kent County, C.A. No. 91C-01-028.
AFFIRMED.
Before VEASEY, C.J., MOORE and WALSH, JJ.
This 1st day of June, 1994, it appearing that:
1) Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), the plaintiffs-appellees, Rebecca and Joseph Alexander ("the Alexanders"), have moved to affirm a January 14, 1994 Superior Court judgment on the ground that the issue on appeal is one of judicial discretion and clearly there was no abuse of discretion. In the alternative, the Alexanders have filed a Motion to Strike one of the arguments raised by the defendants-appellants, Matthew J. Kempel and Kempel & King Masonry ("Appellants"), which the Alexanders argue improperly relies on information which is not part of the evidentiary record below. We find that the Superior Court's judgment and evidentiary determinations below did not constitute an abuse of discretion and we therefore grant the Alexanders' Motion to Affirm. The Motion to Strike is therefore moot.
2) On January 31, 1989, a vehicle owned by the Appellants struck the Alexanders' vehicle from behind causing Mrs. Alexander neck, shoulder, and back injuries. The Alexanders brought suit against the Appellants and at trial held July 19, 1993, the defendants admitted liability. The trial proceeded on the issue of damages alone, and the jury subsequently returned a verdict awarding the Alexanders $220,000.
3) The Appellants moved for a new trial arguing that the jury award was so excessive that it rose to the level of shocking the conscience of the court. In their motion for a new trial, the Appellants also asserted that the Superior Court erred in sustaining the Alexanders' objection to certain deposition testimony presented by the Alexanders' orthopedic specialist, Dr. Richard DuShuttle ("Dr. DuShuttle").
4) The Superior Court held that the damage award was indeed so excessive that it shocked the conscience of the court. Alexander v. Kempel, Del.Super., C.A. No. 91C-01-028 (Kent), Ridgely, P.J., order at 3 (December 13, 1993). The court subsequently sua sponte granted a remittitur, denied the Appellants' Motion for a New Trial, and gave the Alexanders the alternative of choosing a reduced damage award of $120,000 or accepting a new trial on the issue of damages alone. Id. at 3-4.
5) The Appellants have appealed the Superior Court decision arguing that the court's sua sponte grant of a remittitur was improper. The Appellants further argue that since the court found the jury damage award to be disproportionate, the Appellants should be entitled to a new trial on the issue of damages.
6) When a party appeals a Superior Court denial of a motion for new trial on the ground of excessiveness of the verdict, we review the decision using an abuse of discretion standard. Stewart v. Genesco, Inc., Del.Supr., 406 A.2d 25, 26 (1979). We will not disturb the lower court's decision if it is based on conscience and reason rather than being arbitrary and capricious. Pitts v. White, Del.Supr., 109 A.2d 786, 788 (1954). We have noted that, "[t]he question of whether or not a verdict is excessive is one peculiarly within the province of the trial judge since he [sic] is better qualified to determine that question than an appellate court." Stewart, 406 A.2d at 26-27.
7) Although parties generally request a remittitur as an alternative to requesting a new trial, a trial court may grant a remittitur on its own initiative where a party has filed a motion for new trial on the ground that the jury award was excessive. 6A JAMES W. MOORE, ET AL., MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE p 59.08 at 59 n. 1 (2d ed. 1994); see Stewart, 406 A.2d at 26-27; Coldiron v. Gaster, Del.Super, 278 A.2d 328, 330-32 (1971); Burns v. Delaware Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Del.Super., 224 A.2d 255 (1966). This Court has previously reviewed instances in which the Superior Court has granted a remittitur on its own initiative and we have never disapproved of the practice. See, e.g., Stewart, 406 A.2d at 26-27. A careful review of the lower court's decision clearly demonstrates that it proceeded with conscience and reason and did not abuse its discretion in granting the Alexanders the choice between a remittitur and a new trial.
8) The Appellants also challenge the Superior Court's exclusion of certain deposition testimony presented by the Alexanders' orthopedic specialist. We review Superior Court evidentiary determinations under an abuse of discretion standard. Lampkins v. State, Del.Supr., 465 A.2d 785 (1983)...
To continue reading
Request your trial